2022 NCAA Soccer Rule Changes

[CC United]

Re the no re-entry rule. The one thing I hope and expect this rule change to do is limit the purposeful time wasting by teams with the lead in the second half. This may have been mentioned here already, but I recall reading a study that analyzed games and found with statistical significance that the leading team had a disproportionately high number of subs in the second half. We've all seen it.  Coaches with the lead try to kill the game. You can't really blame them, but I absolutely hate it. I hope this rule limits the coaches' ability to ruin the games that we all love to watch. Keep your fingers crossed.

Rule changes often have unintended consequences. We'll have to wait and see what happens this year. Some teams and players will be affected more than others. Coaches and players will adjust and everybody is going to be okay.

Other than limiting time wasting, I'm not sure how I feel about the no re-rule.  I love to watch new players at all levels get a chance and fight their way into the lineup. I am a firm believer that soccer is a game that requires a player to be part of the flow of a game. Yes I know we want players to make an immediate impact.  But the reality is that this beautiful game is a dance and players need time to feel the pace and the rhythm. You either agree or disagree.  I hope the rule change will give the players who do get on the pitch, be it starters or subs, the time to find their pace and place in the game. We've all seen kids put on and pulled off too quickly.  I think some of these athletes will benefit from getting a chance to settle in. That may not happen if the sub comes at the last five minutes, but that same kid will hopefully get another shot in the second half.  Like I said, we'll see.

I agree with previous comments about the quality of these young men.  The many I have met have a impressed me as being great athletes and young men of character.  The Division III soccer experience is overall very positive. Every place is different, but my experience has been that the toxicity often present in youth soccer is largely absent at Division III. Maybe that's true across the college athletic landscape.

I can't wait for the season to start. Many programs will be having spring training. Please post your updates on another thread here. I look forward to reading about what's happening.

[PaulNewman]

Re the no re-entry rule. The one thing I hope and expect this rule change to do is limit the purposeful time wasting by teams with the lead in the second half. This may have been mentioned here already, but I recall reading a study that analyzed games and found with statistical significance that the leading team had a disproportionately high number of subs in the second half. We've all seen it.  Coaches with the lead try to kill the game. You can't really blame them, but I absolutely hate it. I hope this rule limits the coaches' ability to ruin the games that we all love to watch. Keep your fingers crossed.

Rule changes often have unintended consequences. We'll have to wait and see what happens this year. Some teams and players will be affected more than others. Coaches and players will adjust and everybody is going to be okay.

Other than limiting time wasting, I'm not sure how I feel about the no re-rule.  I love to watch new players at all levels get a chance and fight their way into the lineup. I am a firm believer that soccer is a game that requires a player to be part of the flow of a game. Yes I know we want players to make an immediate impact.  But the reality is that this beautiful game is a dance and players need time to feel the pace and the rhythm. You either agree or disagree.  I hope the rule change will give the players who do get on the pitch, be it starters or subs, the time to find their pace and place in the game. We've all seen kids put on and pulled off too quickly.  I think some of these athletes will benefit from getting a chance to settle in. That may not happen if the sub comes at the last five minutes, but that same kid will hopefully get another shot in the second half.  Like I said, we'll see.

I agree with previous comments about the quality of these young men.  The many I have met have a impressed me as being great athletes and young men of character.  The Division III soccer experience is overall very positive. Every place is different, but my experience has been that the toxicity often present in youth soccer is largely absent at Division III. Maybe that's true across the college athletic landscape.

I can't wait for the season to start. Many programs will be having spring training. Please post your updates on another thread here. I look forward to reading about what's happening.

Now seems we've gone full circle.

In 12+ years of following D3 soccer pretty closely I don't recall a single time I noticed a team using subbing to waste time.  See that all the time in the 90th minute or injury time in professional leagues but never once thought this was an issue in D3.  The time wasting in D3 is usually via teams taking forever on throw ins and GKs taking double to triple the time to get a goal kick off.  Also haven't seen coaches putting in subs and pulling them after 2 minutes.

[PaulNewman]

@Kuiper, not sure what to say at this point as it seems we are gonna keep missing each other.  You apparently thought I was advocating for a third group of players ("weaker but not unplayable") who either don't play or play just a little and might get more time with the new rule.  I never advocated for the third group and in any case I don't see how that would increase time for that group.  I think the confusion on my side comes from your references to coaches developing a larger pool of players to play more minutes and hence concluding at least another few players (the mysterious third group) would get into the mix who otherwise might not.  And this seems to be only because of a hunch that coaches would sit or play all the starters at the same time.  I don't see your scenario happening, as most coaches are likely to just keep at least 3-5 starters in for the whole second half rather than go even deeper into the bench.  Basically I'm saying you aren't going to get more meaningful minutes for a larger group of subs or really even for the usual subs that take most of the sub minutes.

[camosfan]

I see the rule changes as part of the continuing effort to make the game experience similar to those used by FIFA sanctioned tournaments. The players playing in college are mainly guys coming out of elite youth leagues where the rules are similar to those proposed.

[jknezek]

I haven't chimed in since the very beginning but I'll just leave this here. It seems like people fall in 2 categories, those who think D3 should be about the players as much as possible and those who think that sport, whether D3 or not, should more resemble the international acceptance of what that sport should be.

I would say that I've seen some people take the second argument and talk about how bad it is for D3 players, but they won't look at the other side. If it's all about the players, then the rule should state that every player on the roster should get game time. Yes, it's an extension to ridiculous, but the re-entry rule is about a strategy, not truly about the players, or that's exactly the rule you'd have.

Does re-entry benefit more players by sometimes giving more time than they would get in a no second half re-entry? Yes. But does it serve all the players with some saintly D3 philosophy? No. It's just an arbitrary line. Now if you want that arbitrary line, it's easy to argue how much it benefits more players, but that doesn't mean it's not arbitrary. Sadly, the no second half re-entry is just ANOTHER arbitrary line.

So this whole discussion revolves around where you set that arbitrary line. It doesn't fully serve D3 athletes, or else they'd all play, and it doesn't fully serve the rules of the international standard for highest level competition. And neither will the proposed rule.

So choose your sides and drive some traffic to this site in the offseason, but be honest and decide which arbitrary extreme you'd prefer... everyone who makes the roster plays every game, or the perfect mimic of international soccer rules. Then start sliding and hemming and hawing to find that arbitrary compromise you think you can live with. Because that is really where D3 is trying to exist, some weird compromise that isn't "all player" and isn't "all standard".

[PaulNewman]

I see the rule changes as part of the continuing effort to make the game experience similar to those used by FIFA sanctioned tournaments. The players playing in college are mainly guys coming out of elite youth leagues where the rules are similar to those proposed.

And what is the purpose of that continued effort?  Why is that a good thing?  Is some D3 kid going to develop into a better player with these rules and some day score a goal for the USMNT at the World Cup?  What is the massive benefit that outweighs the negatives?

More to the point, are you (and others) suggesting that you truly would prefer a fully professionalized D3 where only 3, or maybe 5, subs can come in and can only do so like pro leagues now so that starters are done in whatever minute they are subbed and we'd have a typical scenario of one or two subs at the 60-65 minute mark, and then another couple of subs at the 80-85th minute?

And want injury time as well?

[PaulNewman]

I admit I have no clue about the origins of the re-entry rule, other than to say I didn't realize it was or is a 'strategy' in terms of its origins.

And I don't know what to say about the idea that having a less restrictive environment for subbing slides us right into a "participation medal, trophies for all" model.  Last I checked, the teams most well known for using a good number of subs, like Messiah, Tufts, W&L, etc are trying their very best to win and they also seem quite comfortable carrying a group of players who never or rarely play at all.

[jknezek]

I admit I have no clue about the origins of the re-entry rule, other than to say I didn't realize it was or is a 'strategy' in terms of its origins.

And I don't know what to say about the idea that having a less restrictive environment for subbing slides us right into a "participation medal, trophies for all" model.  Last I checked, the teams most well known for using a good number of subs, like Messiah, Tufts, W&L, etc are trying their very best to win and they also seem quite comfortable carrying a group of players who never or rarely play at all.

Are you not arguing what is best for the players is more subbing so more can play? Isn't that your repeated argument for why D3 should not go to a more restrictive policy? If so, then the goal for D3 would be if you are on the roster, you should play. That is the logical conclusion. It is what is best for the D3 athlete. Now if you aren't good enough to make the team, you still wouldn't play, but, if it's all about the athletes, then all on the team should play. How is that not "best" based on the D3 model of being all for the players?

If that makes your argument feel different and require a snap about participation medals, which is not what would happen, you would still have to make the roster to be a D3 player, it is a very strong defensive reaction. Which should tell you something about your argument. Namely, that it's not all about the players. It's about winning. And winning involves playing your best players at the best times to give you the best chance. Whether that is with unlimited subbing, or limited re-entry, is simply a change in strategy for the coaches.

But since not all players play, it's not really about all the players is it? Just slightly more of the players. And that slightly is completely arbitrary based on the current rule adoption.

[PaulNewman]

If it's all about the players, then the rule should state that every player on the roster should get game time. Yes, it's an extension to ridiculous

I concur.

Of course it's about the players, which is different than "all about the players."  You're assuming one has to accept your inference.  I don't, and not a single person has suggested that every player should or must get game time.

But let me ask you.  Would you be completely fine with subbing, as an example, being limited to 3 subs with one or two coming in at the 60-65th minute and another one coming at 80th minute?  And do you think the top D3 coaches including Singleton would endorse that as good for their programs and D3 soccer in general?

[camosfan]

Someone pointed out earlier, that the rules are uniform across all  NCAA division, there is no carve out for D3, that may help in understanding the objectives. My experience tells me coaches will respond to the sub ruling by rotating starters; there is enough game time ,playing 2-3 games per week to fit in most players on the squad. Players playing at youth level play one game per week with a 28 player roster.

[PaulNewman]

Someone pointed out earlier, that the rules are uniform across all  NCAA division, there is no carve out for D3, that may help in understanding the objectives.

Yes, this has been established.  But imo none of the alleged benefits of the change (other than some aesthetic symmetry with professional which I've noted several times has INCREASED the number of subs) have been substantiated.  Do the pros outweigh the cons?  Imo, it's not even a close call.

There's a presumption that college soccer would benefit from being more like professional/international soccer.  Why not the reverse?  What is the origin of the 3 sub standard with no re-entry for anyone?

I'd like to see "real soccer" modernized....one re-entry, more total number of subs allowed, stopping the clock for time wasting, no injury time or add injury time to the clock in real time rather than the ref deciding how a game continues with the practice of allowing an attacking team to finish their possible chance before blowing the whistle, etc....

[jknezek]

If it's all about the players, then the rule should state that every player on the roster should get game time. Yes, it's an extension to ridiculous

I concur.

Of course it's about the players, which is different than "all about the players."  You're assuming one has to accept your inference.  I don't, and not a single person has suggested that every player should or must get game time.

But let me ask you.  Would you be completely fine with subbing, as an example, being limited to 3 subs with one or two coming in at the 60-65th minute and another one coming at 80th minute?  And do you think the top D3 coaches including Singleton would endorse that as good for their programs and D3 soccer in general?

Would I be fine with it? Yes. I played a lot of games that way on club teams in h.s. Some of those teams I was good enough to start, some of them I played actively as a sub, and some I sat the bench. I understood. One year I made a select team as one of the last players. We travelled like crazy, played and won a ton of tournaments, and I saw the field for a grand total of 10 minutes in one game. The elite tournaments we played had a 3 sub rule, no re-entry. I learned a lot and improved, but the next season I didn't try out for that level. I stayed a level below and started every game I was eligible.

I've been there. It's ok not to make it. I've said that before. What would the coaches say? I suspect they would toe the admin line. For colleges that desperately need student athlete tuition, bigger is better. For programs that don't, bigger can be a headache. A soccer team needs 18 players. A college team probably more like 24 since every year you have a pretty large turnover. But if you are carrying 40... you are just trying to pay tuition bills.

I will just say that you are the one that insists playing more players is what D3 is about because it is good for them. But you don't want to think about the logical conclusion to that line of thought.

"More" players is subjective and fuzzy. I want "more", but I don't want "all", but more is better! So make the rules "more" in some arbitrary way, but don't make them "all" because that is wrong, despite it being best for the players. And certainly don't make them "less" because "more" is better but "all" is bad.

[PaulNewman]

If it's all about the players, then the rule should state that every player on the roster should get game time. Yes, it's an extension to ridiculous

I concur.

Of course it's about the players, which is different than "all about the players."  You're assuming one has to accept your inference.  I don't, and not a single person has suggested that every player should or must get game time.

But let me ask you.  Would you be completely fine with subbing, as an example, being limited to 3 subs with one or two coming in at the 60-65th minute and another one coming at 80th minute?  And do you think the top D3 coaches including Singleton would endorse that as good for their programs and D3 soccer in general?

Would I be fine with it? Yes. I played a lot of games that way on club teams in h.s. Some of those teams I was good enough to start, some of them I played actively as a sub, and some I sat the bench. I understood. One year I made a select team as one of the last players. We travelled like crazy, played and won a ton of tournaments, and I saw the field for a grand total of 10 minutes in one game. The elite tournaments we played had a 3 sub rule, no re-entry. I learned a lot and improved, but the next season I didn't try out for that level. I stayed a level below and started every game I was eligible.

I've been there. It's ok not to make it. I've said that before. What would the coaches say? I suspect they would toe the admin line. For colleges that desperately need student athlete tuition, bigger is better. For programs that don't, bigger can be a headache. A soccer team needs 18 players. A college team probably more like 24 since every year you have a pretty large turnover. But if you are carrying 40... you are just trying to pay tuition bills.

I will just say that you are the one that insists playing more players is what D3 is about because it is good for them. But you don't want to think about the logical conclusion to that line of thought.

"More" players is subjective and fuzzy. I want "more", but I don't want "all", but more is better! So make the rules "more" in some arbitrary way, but don't make them "all" because that is wrong, despite it being best for the players. And certainly don't make them "less" because "more" is better but "all" is bad.

I wasn't feeling defensive before but I suppose we may be edging into that area (you too maybe?). 

I know your story.  I've tried to make clear from the beginning that I'm not advocating for players borderline to make the team or unlikely to play much no matter how long they stick with it.  I was very prepared for my kid to not play at all.  The first few games of his frosh year he didn't even have a jersey (and with a frosh class of 20) and then a couple of games later he was starting which almost seemed like a fluke.

If you think your logic requires me to concede "OK, yes, all players must play and a good amount to boot" then why wouldn't you have to concede that soccer at all levels would benefit from having no subs at all?  Why 3?  Or 5?  I mean, you're good enough and fit enough to start then you can or should be able to play the whole game, and if injuries occur that's just part of the game.

This is college, not WC qualifying...and college with a very condensed 2.5-3 months season.  I'm only arguing for not having an increase in restrictions, and after all this time, I haven't seen a single credible argument about why the product on the field will be better once re-entry is banned (beyond some vague notion that D3 will look or be more legitimate somehow or look prettier).

[jknezek]

If it's all about the players, then the rule should state that every player on the roster should get game time. Yes, it's an extension to ridiculous

I concur.

Of course it's about the players, which is different than "all about the players."  You're assuming one has to accept your inference.  I don't, and not a single person has suggested that every player should or must get game time.

But let me ask you.  Would you be completely fine with subbing, as an example, being limited to 3 subs with one or two coming in at the 60-65th minute and another one coming at 80th minute?  And do you think the top D3 coaches including Singleton would endorse that as good for their programs and D3 soccer in general?

Would I be fine with it? Yes. I played a lot of games that way on club teams in h.s. Some of those teams I was good enough to start, some of them I played actively as a sub, and some I sat the bench. I understood. One year I made a select team as one of the last players. We travelled like crazy, played and won a ton of tournaments, and I saw the field for a grand total of 10 minutes in one game. The elite tournaments we played had a 3 sub rule, no re-entry. I learned a lot and improved, but the next season I didn't try out for that level. I stayed a level below and started every game I was eligible.

I've been there. It's ok not to make it. I've said that before. What would the coaches say? I suspect they would toe the admin line. For colleges that desperately need student athlete tuition, bigger is better. For programs that don't, bigger can be a headache. A soccer team needs 18 players. A college team probably more like 24 since every year you have a pretty large turnover. But if you are carrying 40... you are just trying to pay tuition bills.

I will just say that you are the one that insists playing more players is what D3 is about because it is good for them. But you don't want to think about the logical conclusion to that line of thought.

"More" players is subjective and fuzzy. I want "more", but I don't want "all", but more is better! So make the rules "more" in some arbitrary way, but don't make them "all" because that is wrong, despite it being best for the players. And certainly don't make them "less" because "more" is better but "all" is bad.

I wasn't feeling defensive before but I suppose we may be edging into that area (you too maybe?). 

I know your story.  I've tried to make clear from the beginning that I'm not advocating for players borderline to make the team or unlikely to play much no matter how long they stick with it.  I was very prepared for my kid to not play at all.  The first few games of his frosh year he didn't even have a jersey (and with a frosh class of 20) and then a couple of games later he was starting which almost seemed like a fluke.

If you think your logic requires me to concede "OK, yes, all players must play and a good amount to boot" then why wouldn't you have to concede that soccer at all levels would benefit from having no subs at all?  Why 3?  Or 5?  I mean, you're good enough and fit enough to start then you can or should be able to play the whole game, and if injuries occur that's just part of the game.

This is college, not WC qualifying...and college with a very condensed 2.5-3 months season.  I'm only arguing for not having an increase in restrictions, and after all this time, I haven't seen a single credible argument about why the product on the field will be better once re-entry is banned (beyond some vague notion that D3 will look or be more legitimate somehow or look prettier).

I haven't seen a single credible argument about why the product on the field will be worse once re-entry is banned (beyond some vague notion that D3 won't be able to put as many players on the field).

[Kuiper]

@Kuiper, not sure what to say at this point as it seems we are gonna keep missing each other.  You apparently thought I was advocating for a third group of players ("weaker but not unplayable") who either don't play or play just a little and might get more time with the new rule.  I never advocated for the third group and in any case I don't see how that would increase time for that group.  I think the confusion on my side comes from your references to coaches developing a larger pool of players to play more minutes and hence concluding at least another few players (the mysterious third group) would get into the mix who otherwise might not.  And this seems to be only because of a hunch that coaches would sit or play all the starters at the same time.  I don't see your scenario happening, as most coaches are likely to just keep at least 3-5 starters in for the whole second half rather than go even deeper into the bench.  Basically I'm saying you aren't going to get more meaningful minutes for a larger group of subs or really even for the usual subs that take most of the sub minutes.

Agreed that we seem to be missing each other, so let me just add this for others in the thread rather than as a response to PN and then I'll bow out.

All I'm saying is that the same subs would basically get similar minutes in the game, but potentially at times the coach currently reserves for starters.

Currently, the middle of the second half stretch is where subs often play during the second half. For example, in the Kenyon-Messiah game on Nov. 14, Kenyon made 6 subs between 64.47 and 70.45 and all of those subs were off by 80.15.  Messiah made 5 subs between 63.07 and 68.02 and all 5 were off by 80.15 (a few were subbed at 74.43). Kenyon actually equalized at 1-1 less than a minute after its first two second half subs came on and a little over two minutes after the first three of Messiah's second half subs came on, but Messiah pulled ahead 2-1 after both teams had subbed in their (presumably) first choice players.

So, what happens without re-entry? Either they (1) leave in the starters in the whole time, (2) they let them play until they can't go any longer (so the subs come later, but stay until the end of the game unless subbed for someone else who hasn't played in the second half), or (3) they start the subs and bring in their starters when they usually bring in subs and starters play the rest of the game.  The only scenario that really changes the number of sub minutes substantially is #1.  #2 and #3 might give less minutes to subs, but those players will either start or finish the second half, which coaches currently consider meaningful minutes.  I tend to think the most likely answers for D3 are #2 or #3.  #2 allow coaches to see who needs subs and who can keep going, and, if they both do it this way, it will be a game of chicken between the coaches as to when subs come in.  They will end up both bringing in subs around the same time and in the same spots to counteract each other.  #3 basically just shifts the current "middle of the second half" subs rotation to the "middle of the game," giving starters a breather in the last 10-15 minutes of the first half and first 10-15 minutes of the second half. This isn't a hunch. It's a way this is done in youth and pro programs without re-entry now.

In D1, I do think it will reduce subs (i.e., option #1) because those programs have more control over their players and can demand better conditioning and/or they can switch to a more technical style of play more easily. I don't think either of those options are realistic in D3 and there will be more pressure to play players in D3 programs, which more resembles youth pay-to-play programs.

Bottom line, it's not likely to be worse for players in D3, it might be better in terms of when they get their minutes, and coaches can and will adapt. It's just not the big deal that some think it will be.